[BC] What Next after the Fairness doctrine?

[Sid Schweiger]

>>Scarcity was the only (ever) justification for forcing balance.  That 
reason is completely gone.<<

Even if scarcity wasn't the only justification, it is increasingly difficult for me to wrap my mind around the concept that government should be forcing "fairness," a concept which is not only indefinable but also highly dependent on one's POV.  Would the Obama administration's idea of "fairness" be different from that of a future GOP administration?  Would a Democratic FCC chairman enforce "fairness" differently than another Democratic FCC chairman?  Would the FCC, constituted with three members of the majority party against two of the minority party, be holding endless discussions/arguments over FD cases to the detriment of their other work?  How many of these cases would wind up in the courts?  As others have noted, how many radio stations, particularly those with talk formats, would be subject to what would amount to harassment by those who oppose the hosts those stations carry?

And BTW, Red Lion is a poor example here.  The reason Red Lion was taken up by the FCC and ultimately by the courts was not strictly due to the FD, but to one of its corollaries, the personal attack rule (also now gone).  If Rev. Hargis had limited himself to a review of the book Cook had written, it might not have attracted any attention at all, since book reviews are normally considered fair comment regardless of how they come out.  Rev. Hargis, however, attacked not only the book but also Cook personally (a pretty scurrilous attack, IIRC).  It might also help to remember that after this case made its way through the FCC and the courts, a course which took years, Rev. Hargis sent the required notification to Cook along with a reel of tape for Cook to record his reply...and Cook turned down the opportunity, saying that too much time had passed since the original broadcast.

Sid Schweiger
IT Manager, Entercom New England
20 Guest St / 3d Floor
Brighton MA  02135-2040